Changes

Lincoln argued that, while the decision was valid for Scott himself, the government did not need to follow Taney's larger conclusions:

Lincoln argued that, while the decision was valid for Scott himself, the government did not need to follow Taney's larger conclusions:

{{quotebox| ...if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. <ref>[http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address]</ref> }}

{{quotebox| ...if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.<ref>[http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address]</ref> }}

In accordance with this, the Republican-controlled Congress abolished slavery in all Federal territories without once mentioning the Dred Scott decision.

In accordance with this, the Republican-controlled Congress abolished slavery in all Federal territories without once mentioning the Dred Scott decision.

In the [[Insular Cases]] of 1901, which concerned the Constitution's application in Puerto Rico (recently seized in the [[Spanish-American War]]), Justice Henry Brown acknowledged that the Dred Scott decision  

In the [[Insular Cases]] of 1901, which concerned the Constitution's application in Puerto Rico (recently seized in the [[Spanish-American War]]), Justice Henry Brown acknowledged that the Dred Scott decision  

{{quotebox|is a strong authority in favor of the plaintiff, and if the opinion of the Chief Justice be taken at its full value it is decisive in his favor. We are not, however, bound to overlook the fact, that, before the Chief Justice gave utterance to his opinion upon the merits, he had already disposed of the case adversely to the plaintiff upon the question of jurisdiction, and that, in view of the excited political condition of the country at the time, it is unfortunate that he felt compelled to discuss the question upon the merits, particularly so in view of the fact that it involved a ruling that an act of Congress which had been acquiesced in for thirty years was declared unconstitutional. It would appear from the opinion of Mr. Justice Wayne that the real reason for discussing these constitutional questions was that 'there had become such a difference of opinion' about them 'that the peace and harmony of the country required the settlement of them by judicial decision.' The attempt was not successful. It is sufficient to say that the country did not acquiesce in the opinion, and that the Civil War, which shortly thereafter followed, produced such changes in judicial, as well as public, sentiment as to seriously impair the authority of this case. <ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=182&invol=244 Downes v. Bidwell, full text of opinion]</ref>}}

{{quotebox|is a strong authority in favor of the plaintiff, and if the opinion of the Chief Justice be taken at its full value it is decisive in his favor. We are not, however, bound to overlook the fact, that, before the Chief Justice gave utterance to his opinion upon the merits, he had already disposed of the case adversely to the plaintiff upon the question of jurisdiction, and that, in view of the excited political condition of the country at the time, it is unfortunate that he felt compelled to discuss the question upon the merits, particularly so in view of the fact that it involved a ruling that an act of Congress which had been acquiesced in for thirty years was declared unconstitutional. It would appear from the opinion of Mr. Justice Wayne that the real reason for discussing these constitutional questions was that 'there had become such a difference of opinion' about them 'that the peace and harmony of the country required the settlement of them by judicial decision.' The attempt was not successful. It is sufficient to say that the country did not acquiesce in the opinion, and that the Civil War, which shortly thereafter followed, produced such changes in judicial, as well as public, sentiment as to seriously impair the authority of this case.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=182&invol=244 Downes v. Bidwell, full text of opinion]</ref>}}

The one point still cited with favor today is Taney's technical discussion of a plea in averment.  Besides that, the Dred Scott case has become a byword for unjust decisions.

The one point still cited with favor today is Taney's technical discussion of a plea in averment.  Besides that, the Dred Scott case has become a byword for unjust decisions.

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}

*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html PBS account of the case and its history]

*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html PBS account of the case and its history]

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]][[category:Civil Rights]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]][[Category:Civil Rights]]